GM to Make Electric Motors
The automaker provides further evidence of its intention to electrify vehicles.
Kevin Bullis 01/26/2010
- 8 Comments
General Motors announced today that it will spend $246 million on manufacturing electric motors for its hybrid vehicles--but not for its Volt extended-range electric vehicle, also called a plug-in hybrid. The move echoes its decision to build its own battery packs. Traditionally the company has focused on developing what it sees as core technologies--such as engines--in-house. Now the company is saying that batteries, electric motors, and the electronics that control them, are all core technologies going forward.
In a conference call for reporters yesterday,Tom Stephens, GM's vice chairman for global product operations, bemoaned the lack of attention that's been paid to electric motors. Instead, most of the attention for hybrids and electric vehicles has been focused on the battery.
But the focus on the battery actually makes sense. It's the most expensive part of an electric car, and there's a lot of room for improving it in terms of both cost and energy storage. In contrast, when it comes to a key metric for electric motors--efficiency--there's not much room for improvement. Efficiencies are already in the mid 90 percent range for many electric motors, with this percentage increasing by only 2 to 3 points in last 15 years. What's more, high-performance electric motors aren't nearly as expensive as batteries. They cost less than engines, whereas batteries can cost twice as much--or more.
One key place for improvement is power density, says Pete Savagian, GM's engineering director for hybrid and electric architecture and electric motors. The company's new motors will be 25 percent smaller. Packing more power into a smaller space makes more room for the battery, transmission, and so on, making it easier to design electric vehicles and hybrids.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
mwilson1962
35 Comments
Not smart
Seems to me GM is not being smart about this - they should be focusing on the outward design, control systems, and features of cars rather than the batteries and motors. There are plenty of companies, such as A123, Altair, Unique Mobility, etc. that have already put the research into these things. GM has to add value somewhere else. Very shortsighted.
Reply
erbium
340 Comments
yes but
once electric motors become common on electric cars, there are other major issues:
the motors are at the wheel, not protected from a pounding of road vibrations for hundreds of thousands of miles by the shocks and suspension systems. They also get direct contact with road dirt, heat, bugs, metal chips, oils, etc. There WILL be some serious issues that need resolving other than raw efficiency#s.
While it's great fun to second guess a major corp, and GM has made some stupid decisions, it seems likely that the sum IQ [i] of the company's engineers and directors expressed thru the policies and consensus about an issue concerning them directly is greater than your cursory attention for 5 seconds [u], leading to the equation i>u; i.e. there is stuff you basically don't know about the situation.
Reply
mwilson1962
35 Comments
Re: yes but
Take it easy, Skippy. Perhaps I should have phrased my post as a question ("Would it make more sense for GM to outsource some of this technology that has already been developed elsewhere?") - it is true that I don't know everything going on at GM, and I certainly didn't mean to disparage GM engineers. But, the sum total of GM genius DID lead to bankruptcy. And, I have spent more than five seconds looking at the technology involved in electric, hybrid, and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Reply
erbium
340 Comments
Then consider this
even if they do have their own division as 'core technology' they likely look / purchase tech from others.
And in the big picture, electric batteries are horrid. 1/75th the energy density of chemical fuel. If they get some of these wonderful '200% increases' then is still only 1/35th the energy density or some similar small fraction.
However I DO see electric cars as the future, just NOT powered by electric batteries. having another electricity source rather than batteries makes much more sense. Maybe they have this in mind.
e.g. futurecar 'skateboard' platform on recent episode. electric drive motors, and power plant are all in flat chassis and top could be changed out if needed. But the idea is that any motor could be used (i.e. NOT in the skateboard format but still electric wheel drive motors).
I see the electric car as allowing us to use pretty much anything, but practically it most likely will be hydrogen, and fuel cells. Hydrogen storage problem has been solved the same way the earth store its vast amount of hydrogen - as water, and released on demand via Metal + H20 -> Metal Oxide + hydrogen. you carry metal pellets, and a tank full of water. they are reacted on demand to make aluminum or magnesium oxide plus hydrogen (which also could be burned in an engine but less efficiently than a fuel cell)
the energy is put back when the aluminum or magnesium is reduced to the base metal again. a fuel station would just pump out the oxide, give you new metal pellets and water and they would process it for the next driver, hopefully using non-polluting fuel source such as solar thermal modules, etc.
However sorry to make a snap judgement of you. GM's stupid decisions have become abominations with them pigging out at the public trough of taxpayer $. So maybe IQ[U] is really greater than IQ[GM].
I DID finally see 'who killed the electric car'. Sad to say, it was filled with non-rational arguments, emotional tripe that film makers apparently put in to appeal to that side of people.
It might have been a stupid decision to kill the car. It certainly would not have replaced gas cars but could have found a niche for mostly in-town driving. the very cheap electricity costs to run it per mile are offset by the horrible disadvantages of limited range, long charge times, high weight and cost of batteries. (even today, hybrids have to shave weight to compensate for the huge battery packs in order to get better mileage, and STILL cost more than the fuel saved over their lifetime).
Just an example of how useless these would be: if everyone in houston had an electric car they wouldn't have been able to evacuate before the recent hurricane.
And in the end, companies don't like having specific products that are marginal forced down their throats by governments (CA state legislature) that have a megalomaniac streak. Much of the film was totally pointless, who cares that environmentalists (of which I consider myself one) hang out watching for the last remnants of the cars in storage lots being shipped out? That's just pure emotional BS without any rational message.
Reply
mwilson1962
35 Comments
Re: Then consider this
Love the skateboard idea - the interior design possibilities are endless without the big engine in the front. This is what I was talking about - taking the best of breed batteries and motors (check out UQM) and adding value by integrating them into a uniquely GM platform.
Millenium Cell failed with their sodium borohydride system after a lot of initial publicity with the Natrium mini-van. The problem they had was producing enough SBH efficiently and cheaply enough, if I remember correctly. Then there is the inconvenience of having to swap out the spent material for fresh. Storing and transporting hydrogen is tough - it's energy density is poor and it tends to make non-special metals brittle. And, producing it is energy intensive, reducing the real energy yield. Of course, there is a lot of work going on with catalysts and bioengineering. But, I think that is probably long-term engineering.
Better World is getting a lot of money to develop ubiquitous charging stations and battery swapping services. If most trips, as I have read, are less than 40 miles, and if some sort of standard charging system (along with the associated billing and tracking, etc.) can be distributed, batteries could be viable. Though, for longer trips the battery swapping could be an inconvenience, as you'd probably have to stop every 100 miles or so for a swap.
A friend of mine who worked for GM at their fuel cell research facility in Honeoye Falls, NY actually had one of the electric cars - she was glad to see it destroyed. Said she felt like she was going to die every time she tried to merge onto the expressway!
Reply
asdar
73 Comments
Re: Not smart
You just don't know these things, no offense intended. GM is the leader in electric motors for automotive applications.
The made the major improvement in variable AC electric motors that makes the performance of electric cars better than ICE.
GM also pioneered the control systems for EV's. Plus making Electric motors just isn't that tough and there's a good markup. Why pay someone else to do what you can do for less.
To me this is a no-brainer, I think GM knew all along that if the EV started taking off they'd have a place in the motor part of the business.
Reply
wirjones525
2 Comments
Re: Not smart
Well, perhaps they are thinking about all the non-powertrain issues you're suggesting (external appearance, handling, new features). Didn't GM show a concept car a year or two ago that imagined the entire powertrain/suspension reduced to a flat platform? The idea was to push the technology to allow a return to body-on-frame flexibility in vehicle design and manufacturing. Perhaps an emphasis on power density in their motors is a part of building that powertrain platform. I'm glad to see their focus shifting forward in any case.
Reply